Mind you, pretty much everything is over-fished now: we use fish to help feed cattle on feedlots so that we can eat them, or we feed them to our pets. Since there is a market and policing of ocean fishing is near impossible, commercial fishing is the modern piracy

Be glad you're not a whale - you know how they get hunted, but for 'research' of course. You'd think by now those earnest scientists would have had time to do all the research they ever needed, or are they happier just chewing it over?

re Photography as art - I spent the latter part of my time at university pondering whether or not it is art. I then spent my entire honors year continuing to try to nut it out even as I wrote my thesis. There are things about photography that just don't make sense in regard to it being called 'fine art'. I won't go into all those details because it would take too long and I'd bore myself, but ultimately, photography is simply contingency. There is an 'art' to taking a good photograph, but the photograph taken, is not art. By its very nature, it can't be. There is skill yes, the composition, lens choice all that, but all we do is press a button. I like photography for what it is, and continue to practice. It elevates what it describes, but art it ain't.

re Photography as art - I spent the latter part of my time at university pondering whether or not it is art. I then spent my entire honors year continuing to try to nut it out even as I wrote my thesis. There are things about photography that just don't make sense in regard to it being called 'fine art'. I won't go into all those details because it would take too long and I'd bore myself, but ultimately, photography is simply contingency. There is an 'art' to taking a good photograph, but the photograph taken, is not art. By its very nature, it can't be. There is skill yes, the composition, lens choice all that, but all we do is press a button. I like photography for what it is, and continue to practice. It elevates what it describes, but art it ain't.

All I can say is that I'm so happy I didn't have to waste years in a university doing that!

If all "we" do is press a button, then I think your "we" to be a pretty sad bunch, somewhat removed from the photographers I admire or even those about whom I simply know a little...

Try a cup of warm milk laced with brandy before you go to bed; it'll make you sleep soundly, and wake up brght, bushy-tailed and desperate to go out and make more photographic artworks! If that doesn't do it, then try it the other way around: lace a cup of brandy with a little warm milk instead. If it still doesn't do it for you, take up something else. Trump set a good example of moving on! Much to emulate!

All I can say is that I'm so happy I didn't have to waste years in a university doing that!

If all "we" do is press a button, then I think your "we" to be a pretty sad bunch, somewhat removed from the photographers I admire or even those about whom I simply know a little...

Try a cup of warm milk laced with brandy before you go to bed; it'll make you sleep soundly, and wake up brght, bushy-tailed and desperate to go out and make more photographic artworks! If that doesn't do it, then try it the other way around: lace a cup of brandy with a little warm milk instead. If it still doesn't do it for you, take up something else. Trump set a good example of moving on! Much to emulate!

I think you should take your own advice re milky brandy because it seems I've inadvertently hit a nerve. I also think you need to think out your responses with less personal affront and ad hominem, and more of why you happen to think that photography is fine art. It would be nice to get some intelligent feedback and not this nursery time nonsense. The purpose of university is to make one think, you should try it.

I think you should take your own advice re milky brandy because it seems I've inadvertently hit a nerve. I also think you need to think out your responses with less personal affront and ad hominem, and more of why you happen to think that photography is fine art. It would be nice to get some intelligent feedback and not this nursery time nonsense. The purpose of university is to make one think, you should try it.

Dear boy, I am full of nerves; worse, I don't even like brandy though I had hoped that perhaps you might, and find therein something helpful...

However, there's just a chance that you might have been thinking of whether or not I spent years considering my photographic navel in a university: no, I did not, I just got out there and did it. Quite well, it seems to have turned out to be. What did you get out of those years of photographic contemplation?

As anything not in compliance with your point of view is obviously going to come across as an ad hominem, there's hardly anything left for anyone to say unless, of course, they are both your spiritual and mental clone. Do you see the problem?

I would be more interested in a technique for bottle music. Can you imagine: you need a song, so you just open the cap and pour one out! Magical. On the street, it would probably be heard from within the confines of a brown paper bag. It's carbon footprint should be excellent, however it's heard.

Does this mean I can be a songwriter by conceiving of a melody, imagining what sort of lyrics I'd want to go with that melody…and then consider it done & dusted? Wow! Somebody give me a Grammy in advance! And "potential performance" royalties too!

Dear boy, I am full of nerves; worse, I don't even like brandy though I had hoped that perhaps you might, and find therein something helpful...

However, there's just a chance that you might have been thinking of whether or not I spent years considering my photographic navel in a university: no, I did not, I just got out there and did it. Quite well, it seems to have turned out to be. What did you get out of those years of photographic contemplation?

As anything not in compliance with your point of view is obviously going to come across as an ad hominem, there's hardly anything left for anyone to say unless, of course, they are both your spiritual and mental clone. Do you see the problem?

Rob C

Terrible, just terrible. You know, I was hoping that LuLa might be a good place to discuss these issues, which are actually quite relevant whether you agree or not. I guess it's just like every other silly internet forum where group think reigns. Anyway, whatever the case, I'll just ignore you from here on unless you start actually responding to point. Go see some exhibitions, take notes, discuss with friends. It's very rewarding.

Documentation. Record keeping. Not sure entirely, but photography by its nature cannot create anything. Do you agree?

Artist and paint may or may not be art, depending upon one's definition of what art is. In post-modern society it's a vexatious issue. Duchamps really threw a massive curve ball with his ready mades with which the public is still struggling.

Documentation. Record keeping. Not sure entirely, but photography by its nature cannot create anything. Do you agree?

Not at all. A photograph can create emotions and awareness and discussion, just as any other art form can.

I would agree that many photographs fall into the category of snapshots, documentation and record keeping. And some photographers seem to spend time trying to justify that what they produce is art. But I would also agree with others here that, for some, producing a photograph is far from pushing a button. The "elements of art" (color, line, shape, space, etc.) and principles of design (balance, harmony, emphasis, movement, proportion, rhythm, etc.) come into play just as they do with, say, a painter. BEFORE any button is pushed, there is pre-visualization and, depending on the subject, there may be elaborate preparations. After the image is taken, there is post-shot work to realize the initial vision. And that vision has the same goal as any painting or drawing – to communicate to the viewer or listener; to evoke a visceral or intellectual response.

In the end, what matters to me is the IMAGE (talking about two-dimensional representations), and not the medium. I have every bit as much respect for a photograph that resonates with me as I do for a painting or drawing. Is it art? The answer to that question, regardless of the medium, may always be moot.

Not at all. A photograph can create emotions and awareness and discussion, just as any other art form can.

I would agree that many photographs fall into the category of snapshots, documentation and record keeping. And some photographers seem to spend time trying to justify that what they produce is art. But I would also agree with others here that, for some, producing a photograph is far from pushing a button. The "elements of art" (color, line, shape, space, etc.) and principles of design (balance, harmony, emphasis, movement, proportion, rhythm, etc.) come into play just as they do with, say, a painter. BEFORE any button is pushed, there is pre-visualization and, depending on the subject, there may be elaborate preparations. After the image is taken, there is post-shot work to realize the initial vision. And that vision has the same goal as any painting or drawing – to communicate to the viewer or listener; to evoke a visceral or intellectual response.

In the end, what matters to me is the IMAGE (talking about two-dimensional representations), and not the medium. I have every bit as much respect for a photograph that resonates with me as I do for a painting or drawing. Is it art? The answer to that question, regardless of the medium, may always be moot.

I'm not disputing how people 'feel' about their work, but ultimately it is just a push of a button. I agree with you that there is an art to taking a good photo, a point which I already made, and I also agree that one can't deny feelings evoked in the viewer when looking at a well executed photograph. However, for me, and as someone who has given this a lot of thought, perhaps too much I don't know, there is the undeniable fact that nothing at all is being created in a photograph. The photographer releases the shutter over a sensor and the camera records the light. As I've said, I enjoy photography for what it is, but I can't resolve the issue at hand, not as yet anyway. I don't expect anyone at all to agree with me, but I do like a discussion and you've provided that so I appreciate it.

I'm not disputing how people 'feel' about their work, but ultimately it is just a push of a button. I agree with you that there is an art to taking a good photo, a point which I already made, and I also agree that one can't deny feelings evoked in the viewer when looking at a well executed photograph. However, for me, and as someone who has given this a lot of thought, perhaps too much I don't know, there is the undeniable fact that nothing at all is being created in a photograph. The photographer releases the shutter over a sensor and the camera records the light. As I've said, I enjoy photography for what it is, but I can't resolve the issue at hand, not as yet anyway. I don't expect anyone at all to agree with me, but I do like a discussion and you've provided that so I appreciate it.

The viewer decides what is art, not the person who created it. If I look at something created by someone and find aesthetic value in it, then it is art and I would call the creator an artist, one who created art. Therefore photography is art because it has aesthetic value. It has nothing to do with the process of how it was created.

Marton, how old are you? Has it occurred to you that a LOT of people have given this a lot of thought? That the debate rages still between different critics and academics in both art and wider philosophy? Or that in simple logic, it isn't possible to declare or deny membership of a category until you can define that category, and that an even greater amount of thought has been spent while failing to reach a consensus on what is art?

Here for example is Bernard Stiegler (the most recent I've listened to): The question of what is art is simply a "cache-misère" to avoid the real question of esthetics. The basis of all esthetic judgement is erotic, we collect paintings because we are too well educated to have sex with everyone we meet.

I'm getting the impression that some posters, such as Marton, might be using their camera in jpeg mode, allowing the camera to do all the processing according to certain presets, such as landscape, portrait and so on.

The creative aspect of photography not only includes pressing the shutter button at an appropriate and specific time, and composing the shot according to a desired perspective and choice of lens focal length, but processing the image in a program such as Photoshop.

That processing can be as time-consuming and meticulous as the creation of a painting.

is the debate about how long it takes to create the product ?painting, sculpture, imaging all take previsualization and some planning for production of the result. The execution of that in painting and sculpture takes some time. Maybe the visualization changes during and part of that process. There certainly is time to do that. In imaging, the execution is in an effective instant - a capture of what is available in the light. To change the image requires work in post, but it can only go so far before the image has to be re-executed - another instant.So if the first two are judged by the viewer or the creator as "art", i don't see the difference with imaging just because the capture, painting, carving occurs with a button push. The same thought goes into to it, unless one is the victim of happenstance, just the mechanics are different.

The execution of that in painting and sculpture takes some time. Maybe the visualization changes during and part of that process. There certainly is time to do that.

Yes, I think it must often be the case, perhaps always the case, that the visualization changes and is modified during the process of painting or making a sculpture. There are numerous examples of old art works that have been X-rayed to reveal hidden images behind the finished one, or at least different images that appear to have been later modified by the artist as his visual conception changes.

The question here might be, did da Vinci finish the first one in accordance with his visualization, then simply used the finished portrait to create another similar portrait, instead of using a blank canvas? If that's the case, why would he do that? Was he desperately short of money?

I tend to agree with Martin Kemp (Emeritus Professor of the History of Art at the University of Oxford) who is reported in the articles to have claimed: 'The idea that there is that picture as it were hiding underneath the surface is untenable. He disagrees that the different stages of the painting represent different portraits, but thinks they are more likely to show how the final painting evolved.'

As I process an image in Photoshop, I often refer back to previous stages by clicking on the various History states. The change in the image's appearance that is shown when clicking alternately on the first option 'open', then on the final adjustment, perhaps 30 stages down from 'open', is sometimes huge.

However, for me, and as someone who has given this a lot of thought, perhaps too much I don't know, there is the undeniable fact that nothing at all is being created in a photograph. The photographer releases the shutter over a sensor and the camera records the light. As I've said, I enjoy photography for what it is, but I can't resolve the issue at hand, not as yet anyway.

TAKING FLIGHT

I would not presume to call the attached image "art". It wasn't my intent to create "art", I just wanted to create something of interest. And, rather than art, some would might it "garbage" or "amateurish". Others might deny that it is photography at all. But the medium is photography. It is photons of light captured (in this case) by a sensor, and turned into numbers. And, yes, there has been post-shot manipulation to achieve my intent.

So, what is this a picture of? Does it matter? Would it surprise you to know that it is a picture of a peony bloom blowing in the wind, deliberately exposed with a slow (but not too slow) shutter speed? There was lots of experimentation during the taking, and afterwards, of course. Anyway, I don't post it as any shining example of "something created in a photograph". Just an image to perhaps discuss.

Documentation. Record keeping. Not sure entirely, but photography by its nature cannot create anything. Do you agree?

NOVEMBER

Another example to ponder. What is it a record of? Does it really matter? Would it surprise you to know that it is that damn peony plant again? This time, I took pictures of the dying foliage, which I had clipped and taken inside. The image is a combination of two photographs. I used window light and a sheet of black mat board for background. Manipulation was pretty simple.